Hi,

I find this a good way to leave your readers un-influenced of what you think and to open the space for debate. Interestingly, this form of freedom seems not to be understood by everyone. Strange enough.

Here is what I think:

This question can only arise when things have already run their course. Both individuals and companies now face the dilemma of having to make a decision that, it seems, cannot be fair to anyone. The legislature has basically decided to create a stalemate itself through the Emergency Act, the fixation of a state of affairs that has been called an "emergency of national proportions" and has been in force ever since. Thus there is a great deal of legal uncertainty on all sides, the consumer as well as the business operator. A business operator who observes that a large proportion of his employees have been fearful since the beginning of the whole thing and supposedly want to follow the measures will probably expect difficulties from the workforce, if not fear legal consequences, insofar as he decides not to demand a vaccination card. If he himself has strictly enforced all the measures in his business and has not experienced any particular loss of turnover, this economic calculation will prove him right, especially since he can feel legally on the safer side.

If, on the other hand, he fears that customers or employees could take legal action against him, he may change his company policy. So it depends very much on the mood in one's own company how a business behaves in this matter.

In all of this, one's conscience seems not to have been properly consulted, certainly a dilemma for any business enterprise. The moral question of conscience has already been answered in advance and so people probably don't dare to really speak openly.

One basically makes it impossible for everyone NOT to decide.

For that reason alone, I don't want to answer the question of business owners refusing service to someone who doesn't carry a health certificate. Because this is basically an undecidable matter that masquerades as if one must or should make the decision. A shopkeeper could perhaps stay out of it by saying that he grants free access to everyone and that those who are too scared or afraid of catching a disease do not need to take the risk and can shop elsewhere. In fact, this argument is used in reverse, where it is said that those who do not want to get tested or injected can just go somewhere else.

This cannot really be verified, but the tendency is to observe that there are hardly any shops that leave it up to the customers how to behave. The thing has taken on a life of its own.

The legal uncertainty that prevails everywhere contributes to the fact that presumably only very courageous or disgruntled people break the rules or even seek the path of a legal dispute. The rest wait it out and try to sit it out as well, or take a less obvious view.

From my perspective of a customer, I would no longer enter shops with vaccination pass instructions.

Of course, a business can always refuse someone entry on a situational basis and why not? However, that is different from a prefabricated regulation. There is a big difference between not letting a customer in from the outset and deciding to do so on a case-by-case basis due to a spontaneous occurrence. The best of all situations is that there are unwritten rules that leave a margin for all, as each event is different from the other. Pre-formulations often cause more problems than they solve.

Greetings to you.